As for #1: Since 2008, the Yen has gone from 120 to the US Dollar (and similar for the Euro, etc.) to 80 to the dollar.

That means that a $1,000 item in 2008 would now cost $1,500 in 2012. That is one reason why this lens is so expensive. If Canon get $2,300 for this now, that is equivalent to getting $1,518 in 2008. Sound familar?

For #2: Speciality shops only discount items that are not selling well.

When you have a hot item like this, the only real way to get a discount is to find a retailer that gives a "blanket" percentage off for Black Friday,, etc.

Like Dell, with 15% off all SLR camera & lenses, that type of thing. Or speciality discounters, like Buy.com, or Beach on eBay, etc.

Canon will offer rebates around Xmas, but not on the newest and hotest items.

It is a balance between having something and using it, and waiting until you can buy it a little more cheaply.

Remember that for a business the real "Cost" of a lens like this is not the sticker price. It is the "Purchase Price" minus the "Residual Value."

Take the 70-200 2.8 II, for example. It is selling used for about $1,900. If you bought that at $2,300 2 years ago, your "Net Cost of Ownership" is $400, or about $200 per year.

If you are a pro doing weddings, etc. for $5,000 per wedding, that is a small "Cost of Doing Busines." Definitely well worth the investment.

If you are an enthusiast, it really doesn't matter much if you use the lens now, or in the spring on vacation. Especially if you will not be doing a lot of work in the winter. Then again, you might have to wait 6 months to save $200. Really up to you ... how much will you use it, and how soon ...

Sorry for the "Capitalization." I just wanted to hightlight the business concepts and terms for those who make money at photography - it is a differnt way of thinking. They may or may not apply to how you do photography.

As for #1: Since 2008, the Yen has gone from 120 to the US Dollar (and similar for the Euro, etc.) to 80 to the dollar.

That means that a $1,000 item in 2008 would now cost $1,500 in 2012. That is one reason why this lens is so expensive. If Canon get $2,300 for this now, that is equivalent to getting $1,518 in 2008. Sound familar?

For #2: Speciality shops only discount items that are not selling well.

When you have a hot item like this, the only real way to get a discount is to find a retailer that gives a "blanket" percentage off for Black Friday,, etc.

Like Dell, with 15% off all SLR camera & lenses, that type of thing. Or speciality discounters, like Buy.com, or Beach on eBay, etc.

Canon will offer rebates around Xmas, but not on the newest and hotest items.

It is a balance between having something and using it, and waiting until you can buy it a little more cheaply.

Remember that for a business the real "Cost" of a lens like this is not the sticker price. It is the "Purchase Price" minus the "Residual Value."

Take the 70-200 2.8 II, for example. It is selling used for about $1,900. If you bought that at $2,300 2 years ago, your "Net Cost of Ownership" is $400, or about $200 per year.

If you are a pro doing weddings, etc. for $5,000 per wedding, that is a small "Cost of Doing Busines." Definitely well worth the investment.

If you are an enthusiast, it really doesn't matter much if you use the lens now, or in the spring on vacation. Especially if you will not be doing a lot of work in the winter. Then again, you might have to wait 6 months to save $200. Really up to you ... how much will you use it, and how soon ...Sorry for the "Capitalization." I just wanted to hightlight the business concepts and terms for those who make money at photography - it is a differnt way of thinking. They may or may not apply to how you do photography.

Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?

That much better than the excellent mark I? With stabilisation? For me it's a no-brainer (unless Canon decide to release a mark III with IS any time soon)

I bought a Tammy and returned it, the AF is no good. The glass is not bad though. With MF I could get it to be very sharp, at f2.8 and AF, it was pretty much useless...

I did different decision. After I got my Tamron, I sold my Canon 24-70mm MK1 in a week. Tamron is better than Canon MK1 in any point except for AF speed. However, the AF speed is still acceptable for me.The argument between Tamron / Canon 24-70 has always a big gap. Some people like Tamorn, Some people like Canon. Actually, people has different needs. If AF is more important than IQ and VC feature for you, I believe I will stay with Canon. Especially if you shoot a lot of events. For me, the walkaround lens is only for family, Tamron is much useful than Canon.People need to spend your money smartly. Buy whatever the best for yourself.

Any ideas when the prices may come down? Very compelling optics, but you could buy a decent used car for the price...

I feel another topic of 5D3 price. Many people think the price is too high and expect the price will drop. However, you see that on camera bodies, but won't see that on lens often. You may expect Canon will have rebate program plus seller discount for 400-500 price different. However, you won't see the official price drop on this lens.I got my 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 from beach camera for about 1900 after rebate and seller discount. You can wait for good deals if you are not in rush to get this new lens.Try to use the deal alert feature on slickdeals website, you can get a lot good deals. Of cause that's only for people who can WAIT for deals.

I feel another topic of 5D3 price. Many people think the price is too high and expect the price will drop.

I think the 24-70ii will get more praise even considering the price. Lenses last longer than camera bodies, and the zoom might replace a couple of primes if you're not shooting wide open but want primes for sharpness only. The problem with the 5d3 is that Canon is living in Canon universe, while Nikon and Sony are a tough competition with their sensors - but they have nothing to offer like this lens.

1) Boo to people describing Roger's data as conjured or impossible to achieve. +1 to anyone who backs Roger, who is an absolute nerd/enthusiast who very transparently shared his perspective, methods, etc. This guy is a friend to photogs. Further, being at LR gives him the chance to test 5, 10 of the same lens at once, which many 'experts' on line do not do. My trust factor with his data is therefore very, very high.

2) To the 'it can't be better than a prime' folks, you are correct in principle, but throw the latest tech, design and (as an engineer, I'm assuming) spectacularly tight tolerances at the problem, and yes, a zoom can beat a prime. It just happened.

To that end, in theory with that same level of tech/design/tolerance we should see *even sharper* primes down the road. As I am moving from zooms to primes, I find this attractive, though daunting for what the price might be.

As a side comment, that same thinking has seen Canon recently produce non-L lenses that rival or beat their L counterparts. The new 24mm IS and (especially) 28mm IS lenses are right up there -- again, just with sharpness -- as the L glass of similar length. They aren't weather-sealed, or produce the same bokeh, but the sharpness is there.

3) Sharpness is great, but it isn't everything. We also need to consider AF, carrying weight, size in the bag, the color this thing produces, the new hood size (refreshingly smaller despite reversing the telescoping), the #$!# decision to go to 82mm filters (though I'm sure that's part of the math to get the sharpness we want), etc. The user experience should be about more than just sharpness, or we'd all be carrying howitzers around as our walkarounds.

In all, I expected Canon to pants the Mk I as it's 10 years old. I was not, however, expecting it to be this doggone sharp.

I'm not drinking any Kool Aid here -- it's unbelievably pricey and we as consumers need to weigh purchasing decisions carefully. But on a core metric of sharpness, kudos to Canon. Now make me a super small wide L lens, dammit!

I rented this thing this morning and I have to report that it is amazing. Super sharp at f/2.8, ridiculously sharp at f/3.5 and f/4. 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, it's sharp all the way across. Color rendition is beautiful and very accurate, AF is ridiculously fast, and the bokeh is beautiful.

1) Boo to people describing Roger's data as conjured or impossible to achieve. +1 to anyone who backs Roger, who is an absolute nerd/enthusiast who very transparently shared his perspective, methods, etc. This guy is a friend to photogs. Further, being at LR gives him the chance to test 5, 10 of the same lens at once, which many 'experts' on line do not do. My trust factor with his data is therefore very, very high.

2) To the 'it can't be better than a prime' folks, you are correct in principle, but throw the latest tech, design and (as an engineer, I'm assuming) spectacularly tight tolerances at the problem, and yes, a zoom can beat a prime. It just happened.

To that end, in theory with that same level of tech/design/tolerance we should see *even sharper* primes down the road. As I am moving from zooms to primes, I find this attractive, though daunting for what the price might be.

As a side comment, that same thinking has seen Canon recently produce non-L lenses that rival or beat their L counterparts. The new 24mm IS and (especially) 28mm IS lenses are right up there -- again, just with sharpness -- as the L glass of similar length. They aren't weather-sealed, or produce the same bokeh, but the sharpness is there.

3) Sharpness is great, but it isn't everything. We also need to consider AF, carrying weight, size in the bag, the color this thing produces, the new hood size (refreshingly smaller despite reversing the telescoping), the #$!# decision to go to 82mm filters (though I'm sure that's part of the math to get the sharpness we want), etc. The user experience should be about more than just sharpness, or we'd all be carrying howitzers around as our walkarounds.

In all, I expected Canon to pants the Mk I as it's 10 years old. I was not, however, expecting it to be this doggone sharp.

I'm not drinking any Kool Aid here -- it's unbelievably pricey and we as consumers need to weigh purchasing decisions carefully. But on a core metric of sharpness, kudos to Canon. Now make me a super small wide L lens, dammit!

- A

Technology marches on. Of Course someone who just spent thousands on a couple of L Primes is going to dismiss the Prime-sharpness claim right off the bat. Personally I would have thought the fact the 70-200 2.8 IS II beats out most all primes in it's focal range would have made it easier to accept the same from the 24-70 II but the human nature to hate what you don't havde to make your-self feel better is too strong for reason to overcome.

woollybear

What technological advances make for a sharper lens. I would think optical designs, and their various compromises are pretty well known at this point. With that as an assumption, then the only technological advances that would improve sharpness (as well as other lens parameters) really come down to manufacturing tolerances. Glass composition (purity, etc.) Grinding the glass to the specified shape consistently (are we talking nanometers here?). Lens barrel tolerances (again, what scale?). At some point (don't know where) you could design and build a "perfect" lens but it would only function at some given environmental standard. The movement caused by temperature and humidity changes would be greater than the tolerances achieved.

I rented this thing this morning and I have to report that it is amazing. Super sharp at f/2.8, ridiculously sharp at f/3.5 and f/4. 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, it's sharp all the way across. Color rendition is beautiful and very accurate, AF is ridiculously fast, and the bokeh is beautiful.

Anyone have any pic requests with particular settings/focal lengths?

Corner sharpness at 24mm please :-)

+1

I was considering a TSE 24mm, mainly for its sharpness, so the mk 2 came in a very convenient moment pour moi...